On Sunday, 13 May 2007 23:34, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sunday, 13 May 2007 22:30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the better fix (at least for now) is
> > > > >
> > > > > - #define create_freezeable_workqueue(name)
> > > > > __create_workqueue((name), 0, 1)
> > > > > + #define create_freezeable_workqueue(name)
> > > > > __create_workqueue((name), 1, 1)
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex, do you really need a multithreaded wq?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rafael, what do you think?
> > > >
> > Sure, if a singlethread workqueue is sufficient for Alex, I agree that this
> > would be preferable.
>
> Great. Alex?
>
> > @@ -819,20 +843,31 @@ static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_callb
> >
> > +
> > + case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
> > + if (wq->freezeable) {
> > + take_over_work(wq, cpu);
> > + thaw_process(cwq->thread);
>
> Suppose that PF_NOFREEZE task T does flush_workqueue(), and CPU 1 has pending
> works. T does flush_cpu_workqueue(0), CPU_DEAD_FROZEN moves works from CPU 1
> to CPU 0, T does flush_cpu_workqueue(1) and finds nothing.
I don't think this is possible, because we've acquired workqueue_mutex in
_cpu_down().
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
